Standing Committee A

[Mr. Win Griffiths in the Chair]

Local Government Bill

Clause 43 - Arrangements with respect to business improvement districts

Amendment moved [this day]: No. 94, in 
clause 43, page 19, line 22, after 'projects', insert 'and services'.—[Mr. Davey.]
 Question again proposed, That the amendment be made.

Win Griffiths: I remind the Committee that with this we are taking the following:
 Amendment No. 71, in 
clause 43, page 19, line 23, after 'work', insert 'invest'. 
Amendment No. 95, in 
clause 43, page 19, line 25, after 'projects', insert 'and services'. 
Amendment No. 72, in 
clause 43, page 19, line 27, at end add 
 'in relation to a hereditament owned in the business improvement district (''relevant hereditament''); and 
 (c) where so specified in the BID arrangements, all or part of the BID levy to be paid by property owners, or a class of property owners, with an interest in the relevant hereditament superior to that held by the non-domestic ratepayer (''owners of superior property interests'') on whom the BID levy is imposed.'. 
Amendment No. 93, in 
clause 43, page 19, line 27, at end add 
 'in relation to a hereditament owned in the business improvement district; and 
 (c) where so specified in the BID arrangements, all or part of the BID levy to be paid by property owners, or a class of property owners, with an interest in the relevant hereditament superior to that held by the non-domestic ratepayer on whom the BID levy is imposed.'. 
Amendment No. 73, in 
clause 48, page 20, line 24, at end insert— 
 '(1A) Any owners of superior property interests must be described in the BID arrangements 
 (a) by name of the legal owner of the property interest, 
 (b) by an address for service of any BID related information, and 
 (c) by reference to the relevant hereditament to which the superior property interest relates. 
 (1B) The means of calculating any BID levy to be paid by an owner of a superior property interest must be set out in the BID arrangements and must be an allocated proportion of the BID levy (''allocated proportion'') in respect of the relevant hereditament. 
 (1C) The BID arrangements must specify the residual proportion (if any) of the BID levy (''residual proportion'') for which the non-domestic ratepayer will be liable. 
 (1D) The aggregate of the allocated proportions and the residual proportion of the BID levy shall not exceed the amount that would be charged if the BID levy were being paid only by the non-domestic ratepayers.'. 
Amendment No. 96, in
clause 48, page 20, line 24, at end insert— 
 '(1A) Any owners of superior property interests who are to be liable for BID levy for a chargeable period must be described in the BID arrangements— 
 (a) by name of the legal owner of the property interest; 
 (b) by an address for service of any BID-related information; and 
 (c) by reference to the relevant hereditament to which the superior property interest relates. 
 (1B) The means of calculating any BID levy to be paid by an owner of a superior property interest must be set out in the BID arrangements and must be an allocated proportion of the BID levy in respect of the relevant hereditament. 
 (1C) The BID arrangements must specify the residual proportion (if any) of the BID levy for which the non-domestic ratepayer will be liable. 
 (1D) The aggregate of the allocated proportions and the residual proportion of the BID levy shall not exceed the amount that would be charged if the BID levy were being paid only by the non-domestic ratepayer.'. 
Amendment No. 151, in 
clause 48, page 20, line 28, at end insert— 
 '( ) BID arrangements may specify that the owner of a non-domestic property should be liable to pay a BID levy.'. 
Amendment No. 75, in 
clause 52, page 21, line 39, at end insert— 
 '(4A) Where BID levy is to be paid by the owner of a superior property interest for the purposes of calculating A and B the owner of the superior property interest shall be treated as voting in relation to the allocated proportion of the rateable value of the relevant hereditament and the non-domestic ratepayer shall be taken as voting in relation to the residual proportion of the rateable value of the relevant hereditament.'. 
Amendment No. 98, in 
clause 52, page 21, line 41, at end insert— 
 '(5A) Where BID levy is to be paid by the owner of a superior property interest, for the purposes of calculating A and B the owner of the superior property interest shall be treated as voting in relation to the allocated proportion of the rateable value of the relevant hereditament and the non-domestic ratepayer shall be taken as voting in relation to the residual proportion of the rateable value of the relevant hereditament.'. 
New clause 4—BID: No reimbursement to owner of superior interest— 
 '. No owner of a superior property interest shall seek to be entitled to any reimbursement of the allocated proportion from any other owner of an interest in the relevant hereditament other than an interest created after the date on which the BID arrangements come into force.'. 
New clause 5—Identification of Land Ownership for BIDs— 
 '. A local authority or authorities shall, with respect to a Business Improvement District in their area, provide assistance in identifying the ownership of land within that Business Improvement District, when requested to do so by persons drawing up the BID proposals for that area.'.

Edward Davey: Before the break, I had just begun what may be quite a long debate on business improvement districts and the amendments. I spoke briefly to amendments Nos. 94 and 95 and proceeded to other amendments relating to the role of property owners. Under the Bill, property owners will be outside the formal statutory framework for those who would be consulted, who would be asked to pay and who would formally have to be within a BID. I said that I disagreed with that for four major reasons.
 The first reason is economic. Improving the value of the property is the logical consequence of a BID, which benefits property owners. The second reason relates to business. The associations and institutes that represent property owners are in favour of owners being introduced into the statutory framework. Thirdly, there is a political argument in favour of that. It seems rather odd that new Labour wants to exclude property owners from a tax, albeit a voluntary tax—

Andrew Turner: You said that this morning.

Edward Davey: I am just rehearsing the arguments for Mr. Griffiths; that is a courtesy. The fourth reason—

Lawrie Quinn: Surely the hon. Gentleman is not rehearsing—he is repeating.

Edward Davey: I am helping the Chairman.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Does the Liberal party need at least two attempts to get it right?

Edward Davey: No, but we believe in courtesy. I thought that hon. Members who represented constituencies such as Cotswold would understand the importance of courtesy.
 The final set of arguments, which I began to deal with and which I shall elaborate on now, are the bureaucratic arguments. I have been given a copy of a document written for the Minister by one of his officials in the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister. It sets out 16 arguments against what we propose. I call those bureaucratic arguments, because when I analysed them with the help of specialists in the property business and all those private sector bodies that have an interest in formulating and developing BIDs throughout the country, they rejected them all and persuaded me that none of them holds water. This debate gives us an opportunity to go through all 16 and knock them down.

Christopher Leslie: I suspect that the hon. Gentleman has a copy of a note that was produced on a fairly informal basis to help discussions with the British Property Federation. I do not think that it was the authoritative advice that was given to Ministers on this matter. It might be useful for him to know that when quoting the document.

Edward Davey: The Minister very helpfully clarifies for the record that the arguments were given to the British Property Federation to argue against including property owners in the business improvement district framework. Clearly, it is a significant document, so it is worth referring to.

Christopher Leslie: I suspect that the hon. Gentleman has the document to which I referred, but I cannot be certain until he reads it out, so we shall wait and see—unless he would like to give me a copy now.

Edward Davey: I will be more than happy to give the Minister a copy in due course.
 I was coming to the first major argument, which is that the tax system in the United States—

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: On a point of order, Mr. Griffiths. I understood that it was a convention in this House that when an hon. Member in Committee referred to any document, that document had to be made available to every member of the Committee. Can I have a ruling on that, and if so, perhaps the hon. Gentleman will make it crystal clear which document he is referring to?

Win Griffiths: My view is that the only documents that have to be available to every member are those the Government issue for the purpose of the Committee's work. Mr. Davey is quoting from either a non-parliamentary document or a document prepared in the House but not for this Committee, so it is not covered by that rule. However, I am sure that he would want to make it available.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Further to that point of order, Mr. Griffiths. I do not want to try your patience, but it was my understanding as a long-standing Member of the House that when a document is referred to it should be crystal clear what that document is and that, where possible, it should be made available to all members of the Committee.

Win Griffiths: The issue is that when a Minister cites a document to the Committee, that document must be available to the whole Committee, but if an individual member has a document, even from a constituent, it is not bounden on that member to ensure that all members of the Committee have a copy. While Mr. Davey's document might come out of the Government stable, it is not being cited by the Government and therefore it is up to him whether he wishes to circulate it in Committee. Perhaps he should make it clear what the document is.

Edward Davey: The Minister was helpful in attributing the source of the document, and he is close. Perhaps I may help the hon. Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown). I am more than happy to share this document with him or any other member of the Committee. I hope that that shows how helpful I am trying to be.
 We were talking about the fact that the tax system with respect to property owners operates differently in the United States. Property tax falls on the property owner in the USA, which is not the case here. The experts I have spoken to who have looked at this argument say that it does not apply for this reason. They believe that the contributions paid to business improvement districts cannot be classified as a tax qua tax. They see it more as a collective investment. Unlike general taxation, which we all pay through VAT, income tax, excise duty and so on, this tax is subject to a vote of the individuals concerned. They can vote on whether they want to pay it. The people I have spoken to suggest that this changes the nature of the tax into more of a levy. 
 Therefore, although it is based on the ratings system, which without any doubt is a tax, this is a special version. If it had been a supplementary rate, as 
 the Government had previously proposed, their argument would have helped, but it is not; this is a voluntary tax for the businesses in the community and should be seen not as a tax but as a levy. The advisers who have written this riposte to the Government's advice say that the argument in respect of the USA therefore does not hold. It is unusual that the people who are to suffer this tax are requesting the right to vote to pay it. That changes how the system works. 
 The second argument that the officials put was: 
 ''There is no political commitment to change the legislation. BIDs rose out of a discussion on the merits of a supplement to the business rate that could be held locally. There is no intention to change the rating system.'' 
I agree with that, so there is surely no problem. Our amendments to include property owners in a business improvement district require no change to the rating system. The argument that the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister is advancing does not work. Our amendments would make BIDS work by giving local partnerships the option to include property owners, which is a key point. No organisation setting up a business improvement district would be forced to include property owners. Following the enabling nature of the Government's proposed framework, they would simply have the option, taking account of local circumstances. I will come on to that in more detail later.

Patrick Hall: The hon. Gentleman said that his proposals are for an option, and the wording in amendment No. 93 follows that. However, amendment No. 96, which deals with clause 48, says that business improvement district arrangements ''must'' identify any owners of superior property interests. Will he clarify that point? One amendment says that the inclusion is optional while the other says that it is compulsory.

Edward Davey: I am grateful for the opportunity to clarify that point. In full, the amendment would provide for any
''owners of superior property interests who are to be liable for BID levy for a chargeable period''. 
In other words, the amendment's conditions follow only if the BID arrangements are to include owners of superior property interests, but they may not be triggered if a local BID decides not to include such owners. 
 The third argument—for the benefit of the hon. Member for Cotswold, I am quoting directly from the document—is: 
 ''Any proposal to introduce a new tax would almost certain be opposed by almost all sides of the Houses of Parliament. MPs would argue that it increases the burden on business when the economy is looking weak.'' 
It is for the Committee to take that decision about whether Parliament will follow the proposal of extending BIDs to property owners. It is not for civil servants or the Ministers to decide that without coming to this place. I found it interesting on Second Reading to see the support coming from Government Back Benchers, Conservative Members and Liberal Democrat spokesmen.

Andrew Turner: I am curious about why the hon. Gentleman is so critical of the content of the document. It is entirely responsible for the Minister to marshal such arguments as may be appropriate to amendments that may be contemplated or tabled and then to judge whether to deploy those arguments. With respect to you, Mr. Griffiths, the hon. Gentleman seems to be wasting the Committee's time, not technically, but by prolonging the debate unnecessarily by running through a range of arguments that the Minister may never deploy.

Edward Davey: If I was wasting the Committee's time, you would no doubt bring me to order, Mr. Griffiths.

Win Griffiths: If the hon. Gentleman was out of order, I would.

Edward Davey: The hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Turner) should know that, and having sat through this morning's sitting and listened to their points, which verged on a deliberate filibuster, I must say that it is a bit rich for Conservative Members to criticise my arguments. I disagree with the hon. Gentleman. He is right to say that the Minister may deploy whatever argument he wants, but the Government presented the arguments that I have mentioned to the British Property Federation, and my amendments address that point. I may be anticipating the Minister's reply, but that is helpful and arguably saves the Committee time.
 I have far more sympathy with the fourth argument, which is: 
 ''There is a general belief that any levy imposed on property owners will simply be passed on to the tenants, through increased rents. This would need to be separately researched.'' 
I have some sympathy with that idea, but the level of rents in an area will be influenced far more by other conditions that have a greater impact—in particular whether the business improvement district is having an effect. New clause 4 was tabled to counter that argument. Like my other amendments, it was drafted with the help of the British Property Federation. The British Retail Consortium especially favours the proposal to deal with the Government's argument. New clause 4 would alleviate the danger that property owners would simply pass on the extra levy. 
 The fifth argument against the proposal is that although the matter has been debated in Select Committees, with academics and with interested parties, no one has come up with a viable mechanism to make it work. My amendments and those tabled by the hon. Member for Cotswold provide the viable mechanism that the Minister is looking for. He may try to argue that the amendments are technically flawed. [Interruption.] The Minister says that he will not do that, and that is welcome.

Christopher Leslie: Well, I may.

Edward Davey: The amendments have been carefully drafted with input from leading legal professionals who were guided by a group of 11 organisations representing tenants, landlords, local authorities and
 practitioners from those bodies that are experimenting with pilot business improvement districts. They are exceedingly well crafted, and better than some that I drafted myself. There is a viable mechanism to include property owners.
 The sixth argument is a practical one: the limitation of a measure taxing property owners would have to be clearly defined. It follows from the first point that one would not want legislation that could drift. Property owners would rightly be worried if the Bill could be interpreted more widely than intended. The amendments were not drafted in a haphazard way, but tightly drawn so that the imposition of the levy would be carefully focused, and the local people, property owners and tenants, would decide their own rules for a BID. 
 At first, I was worried about another practical problem: the identification of property owners, as there is some evidence that it can be difficult to determine who has interests in different properties. I asked searching questions of people who are promoting the idea about whether it was really practical and whether it would be possible to identify all the property owners in towns throughout the country. The answer from the experts was that, by and large, the relatively inexpensive existing procedures of the Land Registry and other bodies can be used to identify most property owners. The people promoting the ideas admit that in some circumstances it will be difficult to find every owner of a property in the business improvement district. I readily concede that that is not an issue today, but the wording of the legislation allows the promoters of the business improvement district to take a practical approach. The owner of a property who had the freehold on a 999-year lease, but a negligible economic interest in it that was not worth taking into account, unless they had somehow found a way of achieving immortality, could not be considered for the BID and would not be liable for the levy. The amendments, if accepted, would get around that problem. 
 Identification would, in effect, be led by local BID proponents who could weigh up the costs and benefits of trying to identify every property owner in their BID area. It would seem odd if the inability to identify just one or a handful of property owners would prevent a local partnership from involving the vast majority of local property owners who wanted to contribute to the BID. That would not be practical or sensible politics, and I hope that the Minister would not argue that with any force. 
 We tabled new clause 5 to help BIDs to identify property owners where that is difficult. The questions and answers in the document go into significant detail. The next argument, which is understandable to anyone familiar with property law, is that there can be various levels of property ownership, including freeholders, long-term leaseholders and short-term leaseholders. Concern was expressed that the mechanism to involve all those different property interests would have to be very flexible. That is why we tabled amendment No. 
 93, which would enable the local BID proponents to identify which classes of property owners should be involved in the BID. It could therefore exclude the freeholders if the local BID proponents wished it. They would be free to make that choice according to the circumstances of the town centre or the area that was being considered. Again, the amendment would make the legislation more flexible. 
 Concern has also been expressed that it would be impossible to track down overseas or absentee landlords. Again, that hardly ever happens, as most of the high streets of Britain are owned by large property companies that are easy to identify. In many areas, there are relatively few property owners. The idea that hundreds of property owners have to be traced all around the world to get a BID off the ground does not bear scrutiny. Moreover, my arguments about allowing local BID proponents the flexibility to take a practical approach dismisses that belief. 
 There are questions about voting rights and how the system would work when the levy is split between different property interests. As amendment No. 98 makes it clear, we do not want to give property owners more votes, but stress that for the unweighted vote, each contributor would be entitled to only one vote per property, whereas the weighted vote, based on the rateable value, would be determined by the contribution that each interest is making to that BID. Again, that would be determined locally. Flexibility is built into the amendments. 
 The 11th argument—I am trying to canter through as quickly as possible, but I see that someone wants to intervene.

Patrick Hall: Will the hon. Gentleman clarify a point about the weighted vote, which I may have misheard? Is he saying that property owners should exercise the weighted vote? Presumably that would apply only after the first vote is determined—in other words, when those with a single vote per property register a yes vote. If there is a majority the first time, the second vote will come into play. Is that when he believes that property owners should have a say?

Edward Davey: It would depend on the terms of the local BID. That is the point of allowing as much flexibility as possible. We drafted amendment No. 98 to confute the accusation that someone possessing many properties could register a huge amount of votes.
 I was about to deal with the concern that local authorities would have to develop new systems to handle the so-called new tax—a practical concern that has been overplayed. Local authorities are good at developing new systems: they have to be, because different Governments give them different taxes, charges and responsibilities over the years, and the ingenuity of authorities in responding to those changes has been considerable. The proposals provide for them to recoup any expenses incurred in administering the bid. I doubt whether developing the new system would prove too onerous for local authorities.

Lawrie Quinn: On that very point, the hon. Gentleman is talking about a potential merry-go-round of finance. He knows that a local authority can
 sometimes be the owner of property, so following his argument through, it would be liable for costs. He spoke about recouping extra administrative costs, but is his argument not circular? He is going through a long and tortuous analysis of 16 so-called points relating to a document that we have not even seen. As the hon. Member for Isle of Wight said, is he not really wasting the Committee's time?

Edward Davey: Far from it. We are dealing with the practical issues that would have to be taken into account if property owners were to be involved in a business improvement district. A system would be necessary. The hon. Gentleman talks about a merry-go-round of money, but the same applies to most business improvement schemes—for example the one being piloted in my constituency. The local authority will be a member, but only a small member, of the local business improvement district. I can imagine circumstances in which the local authority was by far the largest member, but if it were the major property owner and had allowed its own district to fall into disrepair in the first place, it would have some questions to answer for its local electors. In the main, we are talking about areas where we want the private sector to become involved. Under our proposals, property owners, as well as retailers and other tenants, are relevant, so the whole private sector can work in partnership with the local authority to tackle the problems of our town centres.

Lawrie Quinn: That confirms my point. This is getting into a perverse merry-go-round of finance. The local authority can, as in the centre of Scarborough, be the owner of the property, so it can be charged and levied on that account. The hon. Gentleman argues that the authority could then recoup the costs. It is a perversion of that merry-go-round of trying to track a financial stream. He has aspirations to be on the Treasury Bench. He must tackle this and stop wasting the Committee's time.

Edward Davey: The hon. Gentleman does not really have a point. The idea that there will be a huge paper trail is nonsense. It does not come well from a Labour Member whose Government have pushed through the Community Care (Delayed Discharges etc.) Bill under which social services will charge the health service and pay the money back. We have had a real merry-go-round that will create an administrative paper trail. I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's point and it ill becomes him to make it, given that he voted for a Bill that will cause problems for local authorities up and down the country.

David Borrow: I am a bit concerned about the practical issues surrounding the collection of these charges. Have the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues consulted the Local Government Association and, more importantly, the Institute of Revenues Rating and Valuation for advice on the practicability of seeking to levy owners rather than ratepayers, which is what is envisaged in the Bill?

Edward Davey: The LGA—I cannot speak for the IRRV—has expressly supported the inclusion of property owners within the legislative framework for BIDs. The association that represents local government, the body on which we will impose all those extra burdens, according to Labour Members, has said that this is a way forward. That tends to negate their argument.
 The 12th argument is: 
 ''A register of owners would need to be developed and maintained by some agency.'' 
As I have insisted throughout, all those arguments can be dealt with by local discretion. That is the whole point. If the local area wanted to set up its own register it could do so. Those proposing the BIDs at local level would know whether it was cost-effective to put every landlord on the register. It should be left to them to decide whether the costs outweighed the benefit as, to be fair, the Government are doing in many other aspects of the legislation. 
 There are four other arguments that I want to look at briefly together.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: On a point of order, Mr. Griffiths. Before we get on to the four other arguments, we still do not know what the document is. The hon. Gentleman is making a long speech based entirely on one document. We still do not what status it has. If we are to have a useful debate we need to know what it is.

Edward Davey: We have dealt with that point and I am rather surprised that the hon. Gentleman has already forgotten when the Minister and I debated the matter. He is obviously suffering from memory loss after too good a lunch.
 The four remaining arguments relate to parliamentary scrutiny. The document, which has been drafted by civil servants and was made available via the British Property Federation, states: 
 ''These practical issues could be overcome by detailed redrafting of the legislation.'' 
The implication is that that would take a lot of time and would delay the passage of the Bill. The amendments show that that is not the case. The other argument is that the legislation needed to be in draft form, as the rest of the Bill was in draft form, and would require lengthy consultation with all the various bodies. The Minister and his colleagues have undertaken lengthy consultation already on the overall framework of BIDs. The consultation has been thorough and has been welcomed. The amendments have been developed through that consultation process. Further consultation is therefore unnecessary. The Government have done that for us, and the amendments have emerged from that consultation. 
 It is also argued that the best way forward on the issue of whether we should include property owners would be to give regulation-making powers to the Secretary of State. We could introduce a simple clause that would give the power to make regulations in due course. I hasten to add that I did not come up with that argument; officials did. That would be a bad way of dealing with the matter, and I would not support 
 giving the Secretary of State the power to make regulations—nor, I am sure, would other hon. Members. We should not use secondary legislation to include property owners, and that is why the amendments have been tabled. They would include property owners in the Bill, in primary legislation. However, it appears that the Government think that that could be done through regulations. 
 The final argument is particularly interesting. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for South Derbyshire (Mr. Todd) is obviously waking up now. There is an argument that, if one were to include the provision at this late stage, it might prompt enough opposition to jeopardise the Bill. That argument is mentioned in the document that the Minister and his officials have been debating with the British Property Federation. The point is that everyone who supports BIDs, inside and outside the House, would like property owners to be included. 
 The idea that the amendments could stir up such opposition that the Bill might fall in another place is clearly nonsense. The truth is that if the Bill is to be enacted, we must ensure that we set up business improvement districts that will be successful. We must get the Bill right if we want BIDs to meet the objectives that the Government have rightly set out for them, which are welcomed on all sides. By excluding property owners, we put the future and success of business improvement districts at risk, and that is the big hole that has emerged from the work that has been done up to now. I am saying not that some business improvement districts would not work without the inclusion of property owners, but that if we include them from the start, the chances of success are that much greater. The idea that there will be opposition to amendments proposed by the sector that will be hit, and viewed by those outside the House as being helpful for the success of business improvement districts, is nonsense. 
 The reason why I have talked at such length—and I am sorry if hon. Members feel that I have wasted the Committee's time—is that I wanted to go through the internal Government arguments against including property owners. I believe that they do not stand up to analysis. The amendments must be seen together, and it is right that they have been grouped together. They answer all the Government's concerns. After being briefed for the debate and considering the policy issue in detail, I was left wondering why the Government did not intend to include property owners. There is no argument against it. The Government have offered only nit-picking arguments that can be dismissed very quickly. 
 I look forward to the speeches of other hon. Members, and I hope that they will persuade the Minister to think again. I hope that he will assure the Committee that we will come back to the issue on Report—either with amendments similar to ours, or with some of his own—to ensure that there are property owners in business improvement districts, and that we make those districts a success.

Patrick Hall: The debate about the role of property owners in BIDs is important, because it is about making town centre management schemes work.
 Some Committee members, including some from my party, have been a little bit unfair to the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey). I do not believe that the matters that he mentioned have wasted the Committee's time. Outside this place there is much interest in BIDs and related technical issues, including whether property owners should be compelled to get involved and contribute to BIDs if there is a yes vote. There are concerns about that issue and there is also information and interest about it outside this place and it is right that some of those issues are raised in Committee and that the Minister has the opportunity to put the Government's thinking on record. That is what Parliament is about. Having debated those issues, we—that includes Conservative Members—will not need to go over them again. 
 The Association of Town Centre Management is in touch with town centre management partnerships throughout the country and it knows what the feeling is on the ground. The Association led the excellent town centre management BIDs pilot projects, which are about to roll out—I try to avoid using that phrase, but I have not been able to on this occasion. Those are good projects, and Bedford and several other places are involved. The Association is uniquely placed—

Desmond Swayne: Will the hon. Gentleman tell those of us who do not have the benefit of the knowledge of the success of the pilot projects what the key difference will be between the pilots and the arrangements to be made under the Bill? There will clearly be an element of compulsion consequent on the arrangements in the Bill, which would clearly be absent in any pilot.

Patrick Hall: The pilots are not running yet—they are just beginning. Their purpose is to ensure that when—as we hope—the legislation is enacted, places throughout the country are ready to hit the ground running in order to make the schemes work. The pilots have been drawn up in anticipation of legislation that does not yet exist.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: The hon. Gentleman is interested in town centre management schemes, and he will know that those have existed for about 10 years. There have been a number of successful schemes, notably in Bristol and in other towns. Will he tell the Committee what town centre management schemes cannot achieve that BIDs will?

Patrick Hall: That is a slightly different point. Various town centre management schemes have existed for more than 10 years, but that is not the same as preparing for BIDs. The hon. Gentleman will know that benefits have be gained from the experience of existing town centre schemes, and lessons that have been learned from that have led to growing pressure for the Government to bring about the opportunities that BIDs will develop. Most of those schemes were, until now, operated voluntarily. One issue that has been raised in the light of experience is that the people
 who contribute benefit everyone in the town centre, including those who do not wish to contribute. The voluntary principle is relevant to business rate payers and to property owners. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will deal with that matter in his response to the debate.
 In the experience of the Association of Town Centre Management, there is overwhelming support for involving property owners in a more coherent manner than is the case with current town centre management projects. It also takes the view that the involvement of property owners is more likely to get enthusiastic support from the business rate payers. In other words, that would be a yes vote to a proposal to establish BIDs. It has already been said that most existing schemes already involve property owners, but that is on a voluntary basis. There are repeated complaints about the issue of freeloading; some property owners get involved and others do not. 
 My right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench have taken that issue on board to justify the introduction of BIDs for business rate payers, most of whom are tenants. If freeloading is not acceptable for tenants in such schemes, in principle it should not be acceptable for property holders. Naturally, we should like to involve everyone on a voluntary basis, but the success of the scheme can be undermined if too many people will not participate, even though they are happy to benefit quietly from the result of the contributions of others. 
 The Bedford Town Centre company is also keen that property owners become involved in the BID. A recent survey of town centre businesses in Bedford revealed that 28 per cent. of business units are owner-occupied and that those people are identified and known. The rest are tenants. The company deals with nitty-gritty, day-to-day issues and its view is that the definition of owner should be 
''the owner of a superior property interest''. 
Such a definition could be complex, as the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton said, but the view in Bedford is that the organisation should be that to which the tenant pays rent, the body nearest to the tenant. Trying to keep matters as simple as possible is absolutely essential in such schemes. The more complicated we make them, the more barriers we put up against them. We then lose out from the potential benefits to which so many people are signed up. 
 I have legitimate questions about whether property owners, however defined, should be compelled to participate if a scheme goes ahead. Will it be practical and cost-effective to identify the property owners? Will it be necessary to identify several layers of superior property interest? Who will do it? I suppose that the answer is the local council's estates and legal department, drawing on the well-established experience of local authorities when preparing compulsory purchase orders. 
 I understand that the identification of owners at that stage in the compulsory purchase process can take about three months for a particular scheme. It could take longer for a town centre because that is bigger, but 
 the well-established principle is that it can be done. It is already acknowledged under existing legislation regarding compulsory purchase, however, that it may not be possible, and frequently will not be possible, to identify each owner in a potential compulsory scheme. As has been said, owners may be abroad, but that does not, of itself, stop compulsory purchase orders going ahead. It is not necessary to deal with 100 per cent. of matters to proceed with compulsory purchase orders. That principle could be applied to BIDs, too.

John Pugh: The hon. Gentleman has more experience of such matters than I have, but if the property owners are not involved and if the BID's development and regeneration continues, they have a residual capacity to harm a scheme by using infrastructure developments as an excuse simply to put up the rental values. In some cases, although they may not contribute much by being involved, they can have a negative impact on the schemes.

Patrick Hall: Indeed. I do not think that members of the Committee or people elsewhere are arguing that property owners should not be involved. The argument is about how to harness the matter. Should there be compulsion if a scheme goes ahead? Of course, property owners should be involved. If they are not, the potential of the scheme will be diminished. I am talking about not only income but the enthusiasm and the long-term commitment that we need for town centres to flourish. The point is, should they be compelled to be involved in the way that business rate payers can be compelled if we go through the procedures to bring about a BID scheme through the voting and so on, which we will come to later?
 A judgment has to be made as to whether it is worth the cost and time of finding all the owners in return for the yield from the BIDs' levy. The yield will depend on the nature of BID schemes all over the country because it is down to local decisions. It is not going to be handed down from Government. It is likely to be small; say, 1 per cent. of business ratepayers' yield from within a defined area, which will not be a huge sum. 
 I would prefer that judgment to be left at local level rather than the Government excluding the possibility of tightening BIDs by compelling owners to be involved if a scheme goes ahead. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary may say that such freedom already exists; that local councils can go ahead and identify owners by the means councils have already employed for compulsory purchase projects. But if all the BIDs can do is to ask for voluntary contributions having identified the owners this may make it even less cost-effective to identify those owners in the first place. 
 I ask my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary to consider these matters carefully and to explain the Government's position this afternoon. There is a strong prima facie case for the statutory involvement of property owners in schemes that go ahead. Compelling arguments are needed today as to why this involvement could only be voluntary and why there are overriding reasons to prevent it from going ahead 
 as argued by the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton and others. If that is the Government's view, I look forward to hearing it.

Desmond Swayne: I shall not be as churlish as my hon. Friends about the contribution of the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton. I thought the document he brought to the Committee was very interesting. At the time it sounded sensible, although I confess I do not remember much of it now.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Will my hon. Friend remind me of argument No. 14?

Desmond Swayne: I may have had a momentary lapse of attention by then. I am deeply sceptical about BIDs. I do not want to be tempted into a general debate on the principle because I am sure that it would not be afforded by these amendments, even though there are a large number of them. I will endeavour to confine my remarks to the subject matter that has been dealt with.
 The hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton's remarks at the beginning are fresh in my mind, whereas those at the end have completely escaped me. He described this concept as a voluntary tax. That remark goes to the heart of the misunderstanding of these proposals. This is not voluntary at all. A voluntary tax would be a charitable donation. Once the arrangements for a BID are in place and the required majorities have been secured there will be nothing voluntary about the arrangement. 
 One might as well say that, because increased taxation had been debated during the election campaign, taxation following a general election was voluntary taxation because the people had decided that they were going to pay it and voted for it afterwards. That would count as voluntary taxation, if we allow the hon. Gentleman his definition of this as a voluntary tax.

Edward Davey: Is there not rather a large difference between all the taxes that go into the one pot in the Exchequer and how they are held to account, and a specific local tax earmarked for a particular proposal, which is set before a small number of people to decide on? If the hon. Gentleman believes that there is no difference between those two propositions, I am afraid that we must continue to disagree.

Desmond Swayne: There is a difference, but the difference is not as the hon. Gentleman describes it. The difference is not in the principle that the money must be paid if someone is part of the scheme. The principle relates to how the money is spent. However, that would lead us into all sorts of arguments about additionality, which we would not want to pursue now.

Patrick Hall: I am intrigued by that possible means of reviving the Conservative party's electoral prospects. Is it likely that, at the next general election, the Conservatives will promise that if they are re-elected, income tax will become a voluntary tax?

Desmond Swayne: That would be a tempting prospect, and would take us back to Sir Robert Peel. However, I will not go down that road. The hon. Gentleman himself remarked that he was exercised by the problem of freeloading. If the benefits of the schemes were sufficient and self-evident, freeloading would be at a minimum, and at a level that would be tolerable because of the benefits that were generated.
 I wish, however, to address the issue of property. I entirely understand that there is an argument from equity to suggest that, because the benefit applies to the property owner, so should some of the cost. However, I am concerned about the practicality of being able to achieve that end, despite the well-tailored amendments that have been tabled. 
 My hon. Friend the Member for Poole (Mr. Syms) was seeking to catch your eye, Mr. Griffiths, but unfortunately he has had to leave to participate in the Adjournment debate that he has secured in Westminster Hall. He made an interesting point at the outset, when the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton was enunciating the benefits of BIDs and the increased prices that would attend property in those areas. My hon. Friend the Member for Poole intervened from a sedentary position, pointing out that prices might equally fall. That is certainly a possibility. 
 We are discussing areas in which taxation, voluntary or otherwise, will be higher than it would be elsewhere. Clause 43(2)(a) states: 
''the projects specified in the arrangements to be carried out for the benefit of the business improvement district or those who live, work or carry on any activity in the district.'' 
It cannot be assumed that there will be a benefit. It is possible that the opposite might happen—that rents and property prices might be depressed as a consequence of the activity. Even if that were not the case, the important principle is that if a property owner benefits through an appreciation in his property values as a consequence of a successful BID project, he should not be expected to pay any consequent tax, levy or charge—however we might describe it—until a transaction has taken place that enables him to cash in on the escalation of the value of the asset. It would be most inequitable to expect him to pay a fee for the benefits of the BID if he had not been able to cash in through a transaction. 
 If the BID raised property values, I would not expect a property owner to be expected to cough up until he had disposed of the property or secured a higher rental income as a consequence of new leasing arrangements. I would want that principle included in the arrangements for securing a contribution from property owners to the BID. 
 Notice that subsection (2)(a) says that the purpose of the arrangements is to enable 
''the projects specified in the arrangements to be carried out for the benefit of the business improvement district or those who live, work or carry on any activity in the district''. 
It is important that the provision applies to those who live in the district as well, but I have my greatest reservations about that. I know that there is no 
 suggestion of the possibility of something for nothing, which will be a great relief to those who live in the BID areas. Now that the real question of voluntary taxation arises, perhaps they might be moved to make a voluntary contribution toward the great benefits to be heaped upon them. 
 The real issue is that although the areas might be for the benefit of people who live there, those people will have no means of shaping and determining them. The issue of accountability arises from that. The arrangements will be for their benefit—they are not expected to cough up for them—and will shape the environment in which they live, but they will not be able to determine them. I have great reservations about that.

Edward Davey: I am trying to follow the hon. Gentleman's argument. Is he saying that he favours property owners being compulsorily involved in the BID?

Desmond Swayne: No. I understand the argument for including property owners, but I stated an important principle that a property owner should not be expected to contribute until he has received financial remuneration to take account of the notional benefit that he has allegedly gained. He should not have to pay until he has money to pay with.
 I was moving on to whether people who live in the BID area should make a contribution. That would be an interesting debate, but I doubt that it will be held. However, the matter gives rise to a bigger question on accountability and an even bigger question on additionality, but now is not the time for that debate.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: We have had a long debate on the subject, which is not surprising because it is important. I was perhaps a little mean to the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton: although I had not seen his 16-point document, he raised several interesting points, as did the hon. Member for Bedford and my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, West.
 I approach the matter in a spirit of sceptical realism. The concept is American and it follows on from the American concept of town centre management. Some of the first town centre management schemes were implemented in New York and they were successful. Several of our more enlightened larger institutional property owners such as Marks and Spencer and Boots then used the scheme in this country, and 10 years ago we had successful schemes in Bristol, Nottingham and elsewhere. 
 I pose the key question to the hon. Member for Bedford: what can town centre management schemes not produce that BIDs will be able to produce? I am not sure that he answered successfully. The BID scheme has been copied from America, but the American system is totally different in respect of rates. It is based on property owners and property owners paying, whereas our scheme is based on rateable values, and by and large the tenants or lessees pay those rates. We are expecting to plonk this BID scheme in two totally different systems, which is why I approach the whole thing with sceptical realism.
 That said, other hon. Members have made the point that many outside bodies, including the British Property Federation, the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors and the Confederation of British Industry, have recognised the importance of involving property owners in BID schemes. Most prefer BID schemes to the supplementary business rates, because a supplementary business rate scheme would simply be imposed by the local authority. There would be no possibility of any ballot, and therefore no possibility of anyone having a say as to whether they wanted the scheme. 
 We are considering whether property owners should have an interest in BID schemes. I think that it was John Bright's maxim that there should be no taxation without representation. If property owners are involved in paying for part of the scheme, they must be involved in the balloting procedure. We will need to examine that when we deal with later clauses. Incidentally, John Bright also said that taxation should be simple and easy to collect—a maxim that all Ministers might heed with advantage. 
 Our amendments Nos. 72, 73, 151, 75, 98 and new clauses 4 and 5 cover some of those matters. I say to the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton, in the nicest possible way, that if he is going to copy my amendments, he should copy them in full, rather than plagiarising part of them and thinking that he has done the job.

Edward Davey: For the record, I thought that my amendments were tabled before the hon. Gentleman's. They were certainly tabled on the same day, because they did not appear on different amendment papers. Moreover, I tabled the amendments in the way that I did because I received them from outside bodies and decided to table them accordingly. He did not.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: If the hon. Gentleman looks at the numbering of the substantive amendments relating to property owners, he will see that mine is No. 73, and his is No. 96. That implies that he tabled his considerably later than I did mine—if he is listening. Nevertheless, if he tabled an amendment that I agreed with, I would be perfectly happy, in the spirit of bipartisanship, to put my name to it, and I would expect him to do the same.
 The amendments address a number of questions. Should property owners be involved? How would they be identified? What proportion of the supplementary rate would they be expected to pay? If the Government consider the matter, they will need to consider all those problems. 
 First, how are property owners to be identified? This country has no system of registers for owners of commercial property. However, as with certain planning enforcement notices, it would not be beyond the wit of man, as the hon. Member for Bedford said, to give local authorities the power to require the tenant to give full details of the property owner. Interestingly, the hon. Gentleman suggested that the person next in line should pay, but the problem is that that person may not have the major property interest. Anyone who knows anything about major property ownership 
 knows that there can be many layers—a head and sub-lessee, a sub-tenant and a licensee. Who should be liable to pay the BIDs levy and at what rate? We begin to get into some significant arguments about definition. 
 It would be possible to draw up a list of property owners, but there are significant difficulties. As Committee members have asked, what happens when the property owner is deceased and the property is subject to executors of a will? What happens when foreign trustees own the property? There are significant difficulties, which must not be underestimated. However, it is not beyond the wit of man to do that if that is what is required, and the hon. Member for Bedford should understand that if we go down that road, all property owners must be identified. It is no good identifying only some. If we want a system in which property owners pay, they all must pay. Otherwise, it would become arbitrary and unfair.

Edward Davey: I hope that the hon. Gentleman is not speaking against his amendments, as he appears to be. Amendment No. 72, which is similar to but not quite as good as amendment No. 93, uses the phrase
''or a class of property owners'' 
and starts with the line 
''where so specified in the BID arrangements''. 
That drafting was specifically included to ensure that the local BID would have the flexibility to deal with the problems that he and the hon. Member for Bedford mentioned. All those points have been dealt with in the amendments, and the hon. Gentleman should perhaps have read his own.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: The hon. Gentleman is making a rather snide point, and he has not considered even half the difficulties. He read out a long 16-point argument, but if he knew anything about the subject, he would consider the practical difficulties before acceding that the property owners should be involved. I am adducing some of the practical difficulties. I will then say whether property owners should be involved. It is typical of the Liberals to criticise without understanding the detail.
 The hon. Member for Bedford made an interesting comment that if 1 per cent. of the defined yield were to come from property owners, it might not be realistic to go to all the trouble of finding out who all the property owners are. I suggest that the yield would be considerably greater than 1 per cent., so it is worth at least considering whether property owners should be involved. 
 Amendment No. 73 would insert new subsections (1C) and (1D), which the Liberals chose to omit, on whether the residual proportion could be paid or recovered by the landlord. Again, that is an interesting problem. As my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, West rightly pointed out, a property owner often sits on a property as an investment. A property owner may be a pension scheme, using the investment to pay out thousands of pensions, and it would not get 
 any benefit from a BID scheme until the property was sold and the gain crystallised. On the other hand, waiting until the gain crystallised could take 20 years, and BIDs may not run for more than five. They have a five-year initial term and may not be renewed. 
 The Opposition broadly support my amendment, but recognise that there are significant difficulties in bringing property owners into the system. Indeed, we think that there are significant difficulties with the system as a whole.

Christopher Leslie: Did I hear the hon. Gentleman correctly? Did he say that the Opposition broadly support their own amendments? Will he clarify whether he believes that owners should be involved or not?

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I made that clear, and the Minister is being mischievous. Amendments are often moved in a probing fashion to elicit a Minister's views. We do not always have to support probing amendments 100 per cent. In this case, we broadly support the amendments, we broadly support the BIDs scheme, we recognise some significant difficulties with it and see even greater difficulties with bringing property owners into the system. As a practical way to introduce the scheme, we could bring the system in the Bill into effect, but make provision for property owners later.
 Finally, what schemes are envisaged under the BIDs system? If we are not careful, we shall simply replicate what the local authority should do in any case. What is the scale and degree of the schemes covered by BIDs? We can envisage relatively small schemes costing tens of thousands of pounds—perhaps the odd million or two in some instances—but not large infrastructure projects. Perhaps one is envisaged. Will the Minister tell us? I find it easier to envisage tasks such as street cleaning, tidying up an area's appearance, clearing open spaces, planting trees, improving the environment and other such relatively small-scale projects. Will he tell me whether I am wrong? 
 We have had a long debate and it is worth moving on to hear what the Minister has to say. Many detailed questions surround the BIDs, not least who pays the incorporation costs, how the ballots will work and what the revocation powers of local authorities will be. We shall debate them all in due course, but here and now, on the principle of the BIDs, it will be interesting to hear what the Minister has to say.

Christopher Leslie: We have been building up to this moment and it gives me great pleasure to support the next part of the Bill, which deals with the new opportunities created by the Government for business improvement districts to provide additional services and improvements to the benefit of local communities.
 On this large group of amendments, we have debated the involvement of property owners in BIDs—an issue to which we gave a great deal of thought in drafting the Bill. We recognise that the support of property owners is vital to the success of BIDs throughout the country, but the Bill already provides them with ample opportunity to become 
 involved at every stage of the process. Clause 45 enables property owners to make voluntary financial contributions to BIDs. We know that many would like to contribute in the same way as non-domestic ratepayers. However, as we said in the White Paper that proposed the idea of creating BIDs, significant practical difficulties surround extending a levy to property owners outside the rating system, which brings us to the nub of the question. It would effectively require a new tax on property ownership. 
 Legislating for a new tax on property ownership would make a significant change to our current methods of taxation, which would be difficult to justify for the sake of BIDs alone. 
Mr. Davey rose—

Christopher Leslie: Before I give way to the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton, may I say that he made interesting use of the document supplied to him by the British Property Federation? He cited it, anticipating arguments and trying to rebut them in advance—a pre-buttal process. That was defensive argument in support of his amendment, which rather eroded some of his points. He argued that the new tax on property owners would not be a tax at all, but a collective investment. He needs to reconsider his argument. An entirely new tax on property owners would be extremely costly to set up and difficult to administer, and would be a radical change to our taxation system. I know that the hon. Gentleman, as a putative Liberal Democrat Treasury spokesman, is keen on the idea, but has he had the chance to cost the assessment process, or the collection and enforcement of such a tax?

Edward Davey: I would have thought that the Minister had done that before rejecting the idea, given how many people would like to pay the tax. He says that it is impossible to take my approach without introducing a new tax. Why? We already have the tax base. The amendments would ensure that the rates of property value were shared proportionately between the tenant and various parties with property interests. Why is the idea so impossible, and why would it require new legislation? I do not understand his argument.

Christopher Leslie: We simply do not have the tax base for property owners. Lists of owners who would have such levies placed on them are not readily available, unless the hon. Gentleman knows something that the rest of the country does not.

Edward Davey: The Minister is right to say that we do not have a list in every town centre that can be taken off the shelf, but the amendments would leave it to the local BID proponent to work out the costs and benefits of assembling such a list. Why is he against local BID proponents having that option?

Christopher Leslie: Simply because it is not practical or feasible. To suggest that BID proponents should go through the arduous and unnecessary process of devising a new taxation system on property owners is to be in the realm of the hon. Gentleman's Liberal Democrat Valhalla.

Edward Davey: The Minister is wrong—it is to be in the realm of practical decision makers who want to make BIDs work in their communities. As he has not answered the point, I ask again why he is not prepared to give people the option of going down that road. They would not be forced, and local BID proponents could decide whether they wanted to.

Christopher Leslie: I do not wish to keep repeating myself: that is not a practical option. It is like suggesting that BIDs should be able to devise any money-raising taxation system to finance themselves. The hon. Gentleman would presumably let BID proponents have complete freedom over revenue-generating activities, and would allow them taxes on goodness knows what in the area that they supply. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bedford suggested, if BIDs are to be successful, we must ensure that they have simple, clear and comprehensible rules, and a framework. BIDs need a certain simplicity if they are to fly.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: If the Minister is going to lift the American idea of BIDs and incorporate it in a British system, and if it is to work and have credibility, he must explain why the tenants, who may not benefit from the scheme but will pay and vote for it, should feel happy about that scheme when landlords, who will not vote for it, will probably benefit from it due to the increase in the value of their property. That is a real problem, and he has not explained how he will get over it.

Christopher Leslie: I am not sure what problem the hon. Gentleman has with the idea of the many benefits that might result from a BID. If ratepayers consent to the creation of a BID, it may have benefits not only for them, but for others, including those who live in the area, and perhaps owners, too.

Mark Todd: How likely does my hon. Friend think it that a business ratepayer, who was not a freeholder, would proceed to decide on how he would vote on a BID without consulting the freeholder, with whom he must have some intimate relationship and a clear understanding of either joint value, joint risk or joint harm?

Christopher Leslie: In some cases, the ratepayer might speak to the freeholder, but if he were not an owner-occupier he might choose not to do that. There would certainly be ample opportunity for the owners—the freeholders—to get involved to make voluntary contributions, and if the scheme is to be beneficial I do not see the downside that the hon. Member for Cotswold suggested.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: The proof of the pudding will be in the eating. If the tenants vote for the scheme, they will obviously reckon that they will benefit from it. Few schemes will get off the ground unless there is some means to address the problem that the landlords, who do not have a vote, will benefit from the uplift for their property while the tenants, who have a vote, will not. There will be a real disincentive for tenants to vote for those schemes.

Christopher Leslie: A moment ago, the hon. Gentleman was sceptical when speaking to the amendments standing in his name, which he broadly supported. He then said that, at some point in the future, we should think about having owners involved. He now seems to suggest that it is integral to the concept of a BID that an owner should be involved from the outset. I do not believe that that point is clear on his side. [Interruption.]

Win Griffiths: Order.

Christopher Leslie: If the hon. Gentleman is to table amendments, even if they are simply probing, at the very least he should marshal his arguments so that it is clear what point he is making.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: It is no good the Minister pointing out inconsistencies in my proposals. He is the Government spokesman, and the Government are introducing these proposals. So far, he has failed to explain how schemes will succeed when landlords, who will benefit from them, have no vote and tenants, who will not benefit, have a vote.

Christopher Leslie: If the tenants felt that they would not benefit, they would not vote for the scheme in the first place. That is not exactly rocket science, but it is the operation of the proposal that may be involved in positing a BID scheme.

Patrick Hall: On the point about tenants benefiting, does my hon. Friend not agree that tenants within the existing voluntary arrangements and partnerships are already signed up to them because they see improvements in footfall and trade as well as a safer, more pleasant, viable town centre?
 On the point about property owners or the people to whom the tenants pay rent, I would like the Government's proposal to be tightened up. Nevertheless, it is likely to lead to tenants putting pressure on owners, talking to them about what is going on and asking them to support those schemes, possibly voluntarily, but preferably not. Does my hon. Friend agree?

Christopher Leslie: I agree that there are a series of possible cascading benefits to come from the creation of a BID. My hon. Friend should know: with his experience in town centre management, he is more qualified than most in this Room on the matter and his arguments are cogent. The amendments would not only provide for a new tax on property ownership, but allow the BID proposals to have discretion on whether that tax would apply to property owners or simply to business ratepayers. That would be not only unfair to ratepayers, who would be obliged to contribute to the BID levy should a majority vote in favour of the scheme, but extremely costly and difficult to administer. That is the point I made earlier.
 New clause 5 would oblige a local authority participating in a BID to help to identify the ownership of land. That would mean that it could have to seek out the details of every owner of every piece of property, many of whom are likely to live outside the local authority area and some of whom might live abroad. That point was raised by the hon. Member for 
 Kingston and Surbiton. Those owners might be unaware of the proposed bid scheme, and all that would cost a great deal of time and money.

Edward Davey: Earlier in the proceedings, we said that Ministers were reading a lot of guff from their briefs. The Minister is falling into that trap again. He is making assertions about the costs and the practical difficulties, but he is giving no practical examples with figures showing any analysis that he and his Department have undertaken to justify their arguments. The industry has suggested practical, legislative alternatives that would not place requirements on every bid, but would be options for local bids. Therefore, the Minister has to do rather better by giving practical reasons why that is impossible.

Christopher Leslie: The hon. Gentleman is proposing a new property-owners tax, so he should explain how that would be practical. The Government do not believe that it is practical. If he thinks that it is wrong for us to say that the creation of such a new tax with a whole new tax base and whole new assessment, collection and enforcement processes is feasible, easily affordable, cheap and no difficulty at all to achieve, I do not think that he will shortly fulfil his ambition to be a Treasury spokesman for the Liberal Democrats. He should re-examine the proposal that he has signed up to, and consider whether it is a prudent and sensible measure, given that the proposals for the BID system, based on the existing ratepayers and lists, is the best, most practical and reasonable way to progress.

Edward Davey: Can I confirm for the record that the tax exists—the business rates? We are not talking about introducing a new rate or a new tax or a new charge. We are talking about sharing the extra bit on that rate between the different interests—the tenant and the superior property interest. That can be done; the lawyers suggest that it can, and the amendment would do it. Why do the Government insist on refusing to answer that argument?

Christopher Leslie: I suspect that the hon. Member for Isle of Wight is champing at the bit to get in to help demolish the argument of the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton, but I want to preserve that privilege for myself for a moment.
 The hon. Gentleman is suggesting that because a tenant pays his or her rates it is easy to subdivide a proportion that the owners should pay. The problem of how he would identify who those owners are and how he would determine what the proportion to be paid should be remains a difficult bureaucratic task. As my hon. Friend the Member for South Derbyshire said, if the owner wishes to contribute in part or in whole towards the ratepayer's contribution to the BID, they are entitled to do so.

Andrew Turner: The hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton does not seem to realise that if the owner is taxed, that will eventually filter through to the tenant. [interruption]. I am in danger of allowing the hon.
 Gentleman to intervene on me in the middle of my intervention on the Minister. Any tax on the landowner will eventually filter through to the tenant. The landowner's only alternative is to leave the property untenanted.

Christopher Leslie: The hon. Gentleman has found further flaws in the concept of requiring property owners to contribute. Perhaps he should also have a word with the hon. Member for Cotswold and take another look at amendment No. 151, which I may remind Conservative members of the Committee about in the future.

David Borrow: Does my hon. Friend agree that the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton has not dealt with certain practical difficulties? If it is not to be a voluntary tax, there are issues surrounding its enforcement. All existing legislation assumes that enforcement is aimed at the occupier, rather than at the owner.

Christopher Leslie: There are indeed considerable problems with the enforcement of a new property-owners tax. Many of the properties in Bingley town centre are allegedly owned by Argentine firms and all kinds of foreign ownership arrangements exist there—[Interruption.] Yes, apparently that is possible, even in Yorkshire. I do not know how the enforcement arrangements would apply in such circumstances. I suspect that that is a subject for another Liberal Democrat pamphlet dealing with the concept of a new property-owners tax.
 Amendments Nos. 72 and 93 are also worrying. I am concerned about the definition of a superior interest in a property, which could include superior leaseholders as well as the freeholders, and would make the system even more confusing. The system that is suggested in amendment Nos. 73 and 96, which would divide the liability for the BID levy between the occupier and the owner of a property, is also a matter of concern. All the methods of collecting the BID levy and enforcing its payment would have to be adapted to allow for it to be collected from property owners. That would put another burden on the local authority, and it would not be necessary for a levy that was simply collected through the rating system. 
 New clause 4 would make a provision to prevent property owners from passing on their portion of the BID levy to other persons with an interest in the property, for example, existing tenants. However, that does not prevent owners from passing the burden to new tenants who may arrive during the duration of the BID. That loophole might allow property owners to transfer the burden of the levy to tenants gradually over time, while receiving the same benefits. That would undermine the position of ratepayers within the BID, and it might make it difficult to secure their confidence before the BID ballot. 
 We recently issued a working draft document that provides guidance on BIDs. That document, which has already been presented to the Committee, details a variety of different ways in which property owners could contribute to BIDs without implementing a 
 cumbersome new tax that would either make the system unduly expensive to administer or unfair to non-domestic ratepayers.

Edward Davey: Has the Under-Secretary had any advice from the Treasury about how proceeds from BIDs levies will be accounted for in the national accounts?

Christopher Leslie: They will be accounted for in the normal manner, like any rate income. There are strong arguments to suggest that the levy would contribute to successful BIDs and we have had no objection from any Department in putting forward the Bill.

Edward Davey: Since the Under-Secretary does not seem to know the answer, will he undertake to consult his Treasury colleagues and see whether, under the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development rules for national accounts, revenue from BIDs levies will be accounted for as a tax.

Christopher Leslie: I shall certainly consider that small point. I know that the hon. Gentleman is troubled with some issues surrounding definitions and I shall consider those.
 Although the success of many voluntary town centre development schemes in the UK has depended on the contributions of landlords, those contributions have been made voluntarily. There is no reason to suppose that similar voluntary contributions would not be forthcoming in relation to a BID. Indeed, property owners would be more likely to invest if their contributions were matched by those of business tenants. Such a measure is more likely to garner contributions from owners if BIDs schemes are regarded as an exciting and beneficial prospect. 
 Under the clause, a BID can be established for the purposes of enabling projects to be carried out for the benefit of those who live, work, or carry on any activity within that area. Amendments Nos. 94 and 95 would expand ''projects'' to ''projects and services''. We have always seen the business improvement district as a means of delivering extra services in an area, which is what the businesses might want to do. In that respect, the amendments are not necessary. 
 Amendment No. 71 would ensure that a BID could fully benefit anybody investing in the area as well as those who work or carry on an activity there. However, to invest in an area is to carry on an activity there. The amendment adds little to the clause.

John Pugh: I want to follow up the point touched on by the hon. Member for New Forest, West about the position of domestic rate payers within the BID area. Their interests are well catered for under schemes such as the single regeneration budgets, and their numbers will increase as a result of the Government's drive for more homes above shops. They are represented in a BID area in that the local authority, which will usually be the billing agent, will have the right to veto plans if they conflict with local plans. In the regulations that the Minister will produce, will there be any imperative for the businesses concerned to consult not only with
 those in the business circle who are not enthusiastic, but with domestic ratepayers who may be adversely affected by infrastructure developments?

Christopher Leslie: That is similar to the point raised by the hon. Member for New Forest, West, who was concerned about whether those who live within a BID will be disfranchised from having their concerns taken into account. The concept of BIDS relies on the spirit of partnership, and local residents' interests will be represented by the local authorities, which will have a close role in developing the BID process and will be represented and accountable to their residents.

John Pugh: I do not want to prolong the debate, but the Minister is saying that the local authority will judge whether the interests of the domestic ratepayer are infringed. In the evolution of the BIDS process, will the regulations specify that the interests of domestic ratepayers should be consulted as and when the BID progresses?

Christopher Leslie: The regulations need to strike a balance between setting out the framework and regulating with a sufficiently light touch. I do not go along with the idea of legislation containing long lists of who should be consulted, but the local authority should be able adequately to cover the interests of those living within a BID area. I think that I have managed to cover most of the amendments and the arguments that were advanced. It is important to underline the difficulties in establishing a new property-owners tax. I am sure that many owners want to contribute. Some of the representative bodies have suggested that they should be compelled to do so. I understand the argument of the Liberal Democrats, but I am slightly concerned by some of the amendments tabled by Conservatives. I realise that they are trying to appeal to a wide range of the population, but their amendments were not worth pocketing and bringing up at a later date. We do not believe that a new property-owners tax is feasible or practical in this context. I hope that the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton will withdraw his amendment.

Edward Davey: I have listened carefully to the Minister's arguments and am unconvinced. Perhaps that is because I have heard some of them before and have taken advice as to their merit. He has not said anything that we have not heard before. It is not just Liberal Democrats who are unconvinced. All the outside experts who have had time to consider the Government's arguments have dismissed them. The Minister seems to base his argument on whether what we are proposing counts as a tax and whether the property owners can have the tax levied on them under current primary legislation. It may be arguable, but outside advisers helped us to draft the amendments, which we believe cover that issue. If a rates bill is attached to a property, a local BID project could decide how that bill should be divided between the different interests of the tenant and any other party. The amendment would give the local area the choice.
 It would not have to do it, but if it thought it feasible and could get the property owners on side, surely it could be tried?
 We should remember that the BID project would not vote for it if it believed that the property owners in the area were not going to go for it and that it would not be practical. That is the greatest safeguard: the project, all the different classes of property owners, and the local authority would design the scheme themselves and decide how they wanted to proceed. At no point has the Minister been able to argue against that basic point. It partly goes against the Government's approach so far. 
 When I read the Bill in general and this part in particular on publication, I was delighted by the way in which the Government had drafted it. I praise the Under-Secretary for producing an enabling framework that is not too prescriptive, that does not have a whole set of regulation-making powers—at least, regulation-making powers that were over the top—and that allows the local BID proponents to set the scheme for themselves. 
 It was a breath of fresh air that, this time, the Government were devolving the power not to local government but to local business communities to decide how things should be arranged in their area. That was a real step forward in the Government's philosophy and approach, which is why our amendments try to mirror that approach. They are not prescriptive and would not force decisions on local BID proponents, but would give them options. The Under-Secretary has failed, in many ways, to address that key issue. 
 The Under-Secretary clearly would not ask his right hon. Friend to allow a free vote on the amendments, were we to put them to the vote, but would ensure that Government Members voted against them. I hope that the Under-Secretary will regard the debate as an option to reflect on the issue. I hope that he will take further representations from the Local Government Association and the British Property Federation.

Christopher Leslie: My advice is that, far from supporting the idea of owners being involved compulsorily, the LGA supports the Government's proposals and has not made the representations that the hon. Gentleman suggests.

Edward Davey: We may have to agree to disagree. My advice is to the contrary—that the LGA believes that property owners should be included—but I shall check my sources, as I have not double-checked that with the LGA. My point is that, given the dispute about that, the Under-Secretary should talk to the LGA, the British Property Federation and other groups that believe that this could work. Perhaps the Under-Secretary and his colleagues in the Treasury will reflect on whether this really is a problem that relates to the tax base, as he seems to suggest. The academic points that he was making have no practical bearing.

Desmond Swayne: I sense that the hon. Gentleman is drawing his remarks to a close and would like him to address an issue. In my constituency, there is a business park that has been causing a nuisance. Enforcement has been mentioned, but it has taken the district council some weeks to identify the owners. That can be done, although it is a practical difficulty. If I understood the hon. Gentleman correctly, he seems to be suggesting that if the BID promoters have the will to go through that process and identify those owners, they would have the right to tax those owners under his amendment. However, if the BID promoters do not have the will to do that, they can choose not to do so. It is an inequitable system if property owners will be taxed in some BIDs but not in others, largely because of the caprice of the BID promoters.

Edward Davey: One can argue about what will be fair or unfair in different types of BID schemes. The Minister believes that voluntary contributions will be the fairest way forward, but what about areas where few make voluntary contributions? Property owners benefit from the BID, but they do not contribute to it. Is that fair? Our approach, which I thought the Conservatives supported a few minutes ago, is that it would allow the business community in the area to make the choice. That would be fairer than the Minister or the Committee trying to second-guess what would be deemed fair by every business community in the country. Why do not we trust them to take decisions? Why do Whitehall and Parliament have to decide on every issue for the local community?
 There should be enabling legislation to give people the flexibility and freedom to operate within a robust framework to achieve their ambitions for their own communities. I thought that that was what the Government were about but, bizarrely, for no good reason, they appear to want to protect property owners from making a contribution, which, according to their representatives, they are willing to make. 
 The Minister has not been at all convincing in responding to the debate. I urge him before Report, or before the Bill goes to another place, to look at it once more and to talk to his hon. Friend the Member for Bedford and others who expressed their concern about the Government's approach on Second Reading. The Select Committee was in favour of amendments similar to those tabled by the Liberal Democrats. This is not a partisan issue; I am delighted that at one point in the debate the Conservatives thought they were in favour of what we propose, so we may have some support from them. I hope that the Minister will use the debate as a springboard to think again about the measure. 
 May I have some guidance, Mr. Griffiths? I do not want to seek to divide the Committee on amendment No. 94, because it is a probing amendment to which the Minister responded helpfully. He made it clear that the meaning of ''projects'' in paragraphs (2)(a) and (b) would include services; therefore amendments Nos. 94 and 95 are redundant. However, it is important to vote on the issue, as some Labour Members may want to do so to ensure that property owners can be taxed. Would it be possible to vote on amendment No. 93?

Win Griffiths: If the hon. Gentleman wants to move that amendment formally, he may do so.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: We have had a long canter round the issue and I will not prolong the debate, but I want to make the Official Opposition's view clear. Of course, the LGA, which is Labour-dominated, welcomes the proposals. Its official view is as follows:
 ''The LGA welcomes the proposal to simplify and extend the statutory basis of draft payments to local authorities. This is particularly welcome in cases where the new power will provide greater flexibility for councils in the use of grants.'' 
However, not surprisingly, the significant minority of local authorities held by the Conservatives have a completely different view, which is that 
 ''Conservatives in local government are opposed to BIDS. They undermine local democracy. Small businesses can be significantly harmed''— 
it is not true, as the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton said, that all organisations unequivocally support BIDS; small businesses certainly do not as they have significant concerns about them— 
 ''especially when pressure from larger businesses forces the creation of BIDs, yet small businesses are apportioned the additional costs.''

Christopher Leslie: This is very confusing. The hon. Gentleman now says that the Conservatives' policy, admittedly perhaps in the LGA, is that they are opposed to BIDs because they undermine democracy and so on. However, he said earlier—I took this down verbatim and I am sure that Hansard will reflect it—
''we broadly support the BIDs scheme''. 
He said that it may be appropriate to bring property owners in later. How are those two points consistent?

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: The Minister is being mischievous. I am summing up on behalf of the official Opposition, and I shall, if he and his colleagues will be patient, place on the record where the Conservative party stands on the issue. We tabled the amendments to probe what the Minister had to say. We totally agree with him that a new property tax will be difficult to implement and enforce, and may well not be worth the enforcement costs. I shall therefore withdraw all my amendments, which have no official support from the Opposition. I will also urge my colleagues not to support the Liberal Democrats in pressing their amendments.
 I should like to have a debate on clause stand part. We have talked about the detailed mechanism of a property tax, but we have not explored at all what BIDs are supposed to cover. The Minister has not given a single example of that, so we need to discuss it under clause stand part. Having made my position clear, I finish where I started. We are sceptical about the proposal for BIDs, but we shall not press the amendments, because a property tax is impractical.

Edward Davey: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 Amendment proposed: No. 93, in
clause 43, page 19, line 27, at end add 
 'in relation to a hereditament owned in the business improvement district; and 
 (c) where so specified in the BID arrangements, all or part of the BID levy to be paid by property owners, or a class of property owners, with an interest in the relevant hereditament superior to that held by the non-domestic ratepayer on whom the BID levy is imposed.'.—[Mr. Davey.] 
 Question put, That the amendment be made:—
The Committee divided: Ayes 2, Noes 11.

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Will the Under-Secretary clarify what schemes the BIDS will apply to? I am concerned that they will simply substitute what the local authority should be doing in any case and that businesses will end up paying for them. Will he also tell us how many of these schemes—his Department must have done some work on this—he expects to get off the ground in the first five years? Finally, how does he intend to resolve the problem—I have put it to him several times, but he has not answered—of persuading tenants who will not benefit from the scheme to vote for it, especially when landowners may secure an increase in the value of their property by not voting for it? The Under-Secretary must have an answer to that conundrum and I press him once again to give it to the Committee.

Desmond Swayne: It would help the Committee to scrutinise this part of the Bill if the Under-Secretary would clarify the precise role of the local authority in the BIDS process. Is it confined to collecting the levy and setting up arrangements for the ballot, or will it have an ongoing role? The Under-Secretary hinted earlier that it would represent the residents, but in what precise way does the local authority fit into the ongoing BID project? At the moment, I have no idea.

Christopher Leslie: Clause 43 is the first clause of this part of the Bill. It provides for the establishment of BIDs if ratepayers agree. The process of benefiting the local area can be funded through an addition to the business rate. The hon. Member for Cotswold wanted a practical example. It may be that BIDs will want
 additional services to those customarily provided by local authorities—anti-crime measures such as closed-circuit television; environmental measures such as providing litter bins, street lighting, rapid response to graffiti removal, a variety of aesthetic enhancing projects and so forth.

Desmond Swayne: I am alarmed by what the Minister said. My local authority already provides town centre schemes for CCTV, litter bins and all the services to which he drew attention, which raises the crucial question of what the BID will do that is additional to the current proper responsibilities of local authorities. What he has said so far does nothing to reassure us on that.

Christopher Leslie: The hon. Gentleman suggests that his local authority already provides everything, and that no improvements to the towns and villages of the New Forest are possible, because they are already perfect. I can understand why that may be true of the hon. Gentleman's constituency under a Labour Administration, but I am sure that other members of the Committee can conceive of ways in which local businesses could join together to improve the services of a local area.

Paul Goodman: The Under-Secretary should rise to the challenge of my hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold and provide some evidence that the new schemes will not merely replace the old.

Christopher Leslie: The hon. Gentleman should realise that the decision on whether these schemes go ahead rests in the hands of the ratepayers. If they are not convinced that the proposals in the BIDs document merit an additional levy on the rates, they will not vote in favour of it. They are the best judge of local needs. I can envisage many reasons why businesses might want to enter into a BID. At least 23 other towns have agreed to start pilot schemes this spring, although they cannot take formal effect until the legislation is operative. That answers the hon. Gentleman's other point.

Andrew Turner: It seems from what the Minister says that if an authority is not meeting its obligations or exercising its discretion so as to provide facilities that business finds necessary, that authority may encourage businesses to set up a business improvement district. However, that will discourage authorities from providing such facilities out of their general taxation. I can provide another example drawn from my local experience. If parishes are able to set a rate and do the grass cutting, the local council is happy to allow them to do so, but in unparished areas the local council continues to do the grass cutting. Will we not have the same result if local councils threaten businesses by saying that if they do not contribute, the council will not make such provision?

Christopher Leslie: I am so glad that we are back to the hon. Gentleman's lawnmower problem. We discussed grass cutting in his constituency earlier, and I raised the issue of extra capital that might be necessary for a new
 lawnmower. The business improvement district in the Isle of Wight may propose to improve the grass cutting and landscaping of a particular town centre if the businesses vote for that and want to fund it via the provisions we have set out. We want to encourage freedom and flexibility, so if businesses want to go down such a route they should be allowed to do so. To prevent that would be the wrong approach.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Will the Minister give way?

Christopher Leslie: Well, I would like to make some progress, but I will give way briefly.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I understand that much of the background to part 4 is contained in 33 pages of guidance. I do not believe that the Committee has seen that guidance. It would be helpful if we could have a copy before we continue debating the Bill on Thursday.

Christopher Leslie: Like all other members of the Committee, the hon. Gentleman has, or should have, received the draft guidance. If he does not have a copy, perhaps the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton could pass one along the Opposition Bench to him.
 A question was asked about the role of the local authority. It is true that, as well as the veto provisions we shall discuss later in the Bill, the local authority will have responsibility for the collection of the levy and may, if it is agreed in the BID arrangements, have responsibility for managing some of the services. I hope that that has answered hon. Members' points, and that they will allow clause 43 to stand part of the Bill. 
 Question put and agreed to. 
 Clause 43 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 44 - joint arrangments

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill. 
Mr. Swayne rose—

Christopher Leslie: The hon. Gentleman does not have to intervene yet.

Desmond Swayne: Well, I do actually, because in addressing clause 43 the Minister failed to answer the question about the involvement of the local authority, about which I asked him specifically. That is as pertinent a question under clause 44 as it was under clause 43. He also did not answer the question that I put to him about how two local authorities would fit into this mechanism and about the problem of accountability to their electors. The key issue crystallised by clause 44 concerns the impact that the local authority will have on the ongoing BID project. We shall come to the local authority's involvement in the collection of revenues and the voting for the BID's establishment, but we are unclear about how the local authority will fit into the ongoing management of the BID over the five-year cycle. That will be exacerbated
 by two authorities having to work together in the process. I hope that the Under-Secretary will be a little more forthcoming in the stand part debate on clause 44 than he was in the clause 43 stand part debate, when he avoided mentioning it altogether.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: It may help my hon. Friend if I quote page 13 of the draft guidance, which the Liberal Democrats helpfully gave me. I suspect that it did not reach me before because I was not on the Committee at the beginning when the documents were circulated. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton for letting me have a copy. On page 13 on the role of local authorities, which is relevant to the joint arrangements under clause 44, it says:
 ''Local authorities must likewise be motivated to become involved in a BID. A local authority will look to business to provide a plan for improvements which will fit in with existing objectives for local improvements. They will also wish to ensure that these plans are of benefit to the wider community, including residents in the local area, and in order to take the BID to a vote, will need to be convinced that there is sufficient business support in the area to make the BID a success. Any beneficial outcomes that result from a BID are likely to increase the popularity of the Local Authority in the area.'' 
That is not necessarily the case, as certain schemes will benefit businesses but not an area's residents. For example, bright floodlighting for 24 hours may be to the detriment of residents. My hon. Friend's question is highly pertinent. The local authority, as guardian of local residents, must consult to discover what the residents want, as opposed to what businesses want, to ensure that there is no such conflict. Will the Minister give the Committee some idea of what honest brokering role the local authority will play after the schemes are drawn up? 
Mr. Todd rose—

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I will happily give way to the hon. Gentleman, as he is scoffing and I think that he has the wrong end of the stick.

Mark Todd: I hesitantly thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way. I do not think that the Bill proposes that planning law should be set aside in BID areas, so 24-hour floodlighting that could have a detrimental effect on residents is unlikely to be passed in a planning application. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman can think of more sensible examples than that.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman could think of dozens of them, but I happened to pick that example out of my head to illustrate a point. The hon. Gentleman is nitpicking again. He got the wrong idea about consultations between tenants and landlords, which proved that he does not know anything about property ownership. He may be closer to the mark on this one, but it is incumbent on the Minister to explain to the Committee how the local authority will act to protect residents, who, after all, will not pay for the schemes or vote on them. Indeed, how will the schemes get off the ground? What role will the local authority play in getting them off the ground and ensuring that they are implemented properly and continue to be a success?

Christopher Leslie: Clause 44 enables two or more billing authorities to make arrangements for a single business improvement district covering all or part of the area of each authority. The clause is intended to allow business improvement districts to span two or more local authorities. The hon. Members for New Forest, West and for Cotswold were not content with my answer in the clause 43 stand part debate and concocted several questions about the role of the local authority and level of accountability for local residents living in a business improvement district.
 I have already explained that the local authority has an ingrained role in the proposition of a business improvement district from the outset, insofar as it has a responsibility for the collection of the levy and, if it is part of the BID arrangements, the management of some services. The local authority also has a reserve power, which we will discuss later, to veto proposals when it can demonstrate that the proposal might conflict with the locally adopted plans or other formally adopted council policies, such as the community strategy. Crucially, detailed proposals must be set out, including on the amount of the levy, at the outset of the scheme before the vote, after which the authority would have the opportunity to veto the scheme. Therefore, the authority has the formal opportunity properly to scrutinise the impact of the BID on the residents who live within that area. 
 The hon. Member for Cotswold made the point that a local authority could provide protection on floodlighting, at least through the local planning authority. He says that he can think of other examples. I cannot, and I believe that there is a sufficiently balanced role for a local authority in the work of the BID arrangements.

Desmond Swayne: I accept that the Under-Secretary is in a difficult position, as the arrangements are speculative. Is it fair to add a proviso to the clause by saying, ''We really haven't any idea what form these arrangements will take, but the Secretary of State will have the power to make regulations to govern them once we have thought them through''? That, in essence, is what the clause says.

Christopher Leslie: I am not sure to which subsections the hon. Gentleman is referring, but I shall certainly examine those issues more closely. The clause simply relates to joint arrangements between councils, which they can cover over a boundary for a single BID. In principle, that does not affect their role in the inception of the BID or their ability to veto those proposals. That gives the local authority ample opportunity to be
 involved, not necessarily in the day-to-day running of the BID, unless that was part of the proposal to be put before the ratepayers, but with a sufficiently light touch. I hope that the clause will stand part of the Bill.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: The Under-Secretary clearly does not know his own guidance, which he should know backwards. Page 15 states:
 ''The local community should also be involved in devising a strategy for the revitalisation of the BID area. This can perhaps be done through consulting local community groups or by asking a member of the group to sit on the board of a BID. Through creating a shared vision for an area, which includes the needs of its residents, civic pride can be restored and the existing community can be strengthened. BIDs provide local solutions to local problems.'' 
Before I decide whether to persuade my colleagues to vote for the clause, I shall make one last vain attempt to ask the Under-Secretary what role the local authority will have in protecting the local community as opposed to the business community. 
 Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Committee divided: Ayes 12, Noes 4.

Question accordingly agreed to. 
 Clause 44 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: On a point of order, Mr. Griffiths. Before we suspend, can the Minister tell us whether, at the opening sitting on Thursday, we will be able to amend the Fire Services Act 1947? We may need time to table counter-amendments, and we do not want them to be starred when we come to debate them.

Win Griffiths: Order. I am sure that the Minister has heard that point.

Phil Woolas: I can confirm that the matter is in hand.
 Further consideration adjourned.—[Mr. Woolas.] 
Adjourned accordingly at ten minutes to Five o'clock till Thursday 6 February at five minutes to Nine o'clock.